Carey Pensions UK LLP (now operating as Options UK in some contexts) is central to the landmark FSMA s.27 litigation in Adams v Carey Pensions, which explored whether contracts established through unauthorised pension introducers are voidable. If you held a Carey Pensions SIPP linked to a non-standard investment, your claim may benefit from this precedent.
Carey Pensions UK LLP was a self-invested personal pension (SIPP) operator authorised and regulated by the FCA. The firm accepted business from a range of pension introducers and permitted non-standard assets to be held within its SIPPs. It became the subject of major litigation in Adams v Carey Pensions UK LLP, a case that explored whether contracts entered into through unauthorised pension introducers are voidable under FSMA s.27.
The case established important principles about the relationship between SIPP operators and unregulated introducers, and about the extent to which the 'arranging' activities of an introducer must be regulated. While the High Court's initial decision was mixed, the case significantly advanced the legal argument that clients introduced via unregulated channels may have restitutionary claims against the SIPP operator.
Carey Pensions UK is now associated with the Options UK group of SIPP operators. The combined effect of Adams v Carey Pensions and the subsequent Fletcher [2024] Court of Appeal decision means that clients who held Carey Pensions SIPPs containing non-standard investments have a stronger legal basis for claims than at any previous point.
The correct route depends on whether the firm is still active, the nature of your loss, and whether FSCS compensation has already been paid on related adviser claims.
Submit a formal DISP complaint to the firm. Set out the basis of your claim — the nature of the investment, who introduced you, and why the SIPP was unsuitable for your circumstances. The firm has eight weeks to respond.
Firm still activeWhere the firm's response is inadequate or the complaint is rejected, escalate to the FOS. FOS has considered Carey Pensions cases and the related FSMA s.27 arguments in its adjudications.
FOS escalationIf an FCA-regulated IFA who recommended the Carey Pensions SIPP has since failed, a separate FSCS claim against that adviser is available alongside any claim against Carey Pensions itself.
Against failed adviserThe FSMA s.27 arguments in Adams v Carey Pensions are civil litigation arguments. Where losses exceed the FOS award limit, civil proceedings allow uncapped recovery and full restitution of invested funds where a contract is rendered unenforceable.
Uncapped — FSMA s.27Adams v Carey Pensions UK LLP [2020] is a High Court case that examined the position of SIPP operators who accept business through unregulated pension introducers. The claimant argued that, because the pension introducer was not authorised under FSMA 2000, the contracts entered into were unenforceable under FSMA s.27, entitling the claimant to full restitution of the invested amount.
While the court found in favour of the defendants on some points, the case significantly advanced the legal framework and has informed subsequent litigation strategy. The underlying principle — that authorised persons cannot benefit from contracts arranged through unauthorised intermediaries — remains a powerful tool in pension mis-selling claims.
Combined with Fletcher [2024] EWCA Civ 541, which confirmed operator-level due diligence duties, the combined legal framework gives claimants multiple angles of attack in cases involving unregulated introducers and unsuitable SIPP investments.
SIPP operator claims are subject to the same DISP and Limitation Act deadlines as adviser claims. FSCS claims must also meet prescribed eligibility windows.
DISP complaints: six years from the advice date or three years from discovery. Civil litigation under FSMA s.27: limitation periods depend on the specific cause of action pleaded. FSCS claims against failed advisers: separate eligibility windows apply. Early specialist assessment is essential. See redressadvisory.com/time-limits.
Redress Advisory assesses your position across all four routes and connects you with an SRA-regulated solicitor at no upfront cost.
Begin Your AssessmentYou do not need to use a claims management company to pursue a pension mis-selling complaint. You can complain directly to the financial firm, escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), apply to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), or instruct a solicitor independently — all free of charge. Using Redress Advisory does not improve the likelihood of success compared to pursuing a claim yourself, and our fee will reduce any compensation you receive.
Redress Advisory Ltd (Company No. 17295681) is a claims management company. Regulated legal work is carried out by our Operating SRA Partner solicitor firms. We are not a firm of solicitors and we do not provide legal advice.
The information on this page is for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial, legal, or claims management advice. Individual outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case. Historical outcomes in related cases are not a guarantee of results in your case.
FOS: 0800 023 4567 | FSCS: 0800 678 1100 | FCA Register: register.fca.org.uk